Are evil wizards more poweful that non-evil wizards?

[Great cthulhu]

So, Ive been playing some non-D&D roleplaying games, and from what i can see, evil wizards have more powerful spells. Here are some examples:

In MERP(middle earth role-playing game) the rules for magic specifically state using too many powerful spells can corrupt you like saruman. I can understand some good wizards or clerics would rather die than become corrupt, but does that mean my evil half-troll wizard can use very powerful spells with no disadvantages?
In rogue trader, I play as a daemon sorcerer, who openly worships chaos (basically evil in the 40k universe), though he serves aboard an imperial vessel. This character uses sorcery, a super powerful spell list that corrupts the user as he gains more spells.

Excluding the fact that other characters will dislike the evil wizard, does that make him nonetheless more powerful than the other players?

[Tiadoppler]

The following is all stereotype/cliche that frequently occurs in stories, not some inherent rule.


Evil could be defined as the willingness to harm others to benefit yourself.

A single Evil wizard may be willing to grab more sources of power, cast crueler spells, and use more immoral methods to succeed than a Good wizard, so a single Evil wizard is often more "powerful" than a single Good wizard, who is constrained by their personal ethics.

Good wizards have friends and social acceptance. A team of Evil wizards frequently backstabs each other, while a team of Good wizards can cooperate and function together. A team of Good wizards is often more powerful than a team of Evil wizards.

[Aliquid]

It isn’t a matter of the magic just making the character “evil”. It is more like a situation where the wizard is no longer controlling the magic, because the magic is now controlling the wizard.

even a wizard who starts evil is no longer completely in control... they might care less that the magic makes them do chaotic things “oops, I just lost it and killed my assistant... he was a good one too... oh well, that’s the price you pay for being a powerful wizard”

[Tanarii]

Of course. As the Emperor, Vader, Ben, and Yoda have taught us, the dark side is always more powerful than the light side. You just have to be willing to pay a terrible price.

[Pleh]

Of course. As the Emperor, Vader, Ben, and Yoda have taught us, the dark side is always more powerful than the light side. You just have to be willing to pay a terrible price.

Luke "Is the dark side stronger?"

Yoda "No! No. Only faster, more seductive."

[Bastian Weaver]

No, no, no. Dark Side is not more powerful. Dark Side is easier.
And corruption is a problem for evil characters, too. The Nazgul, for example, are powerful, but forced to serve Sauron.

[Great cthulhu]

You know Pleh, I was going to post that same message, then I remembered...

This is coming from a guy who served an order who lied to its members saying that destroying the dark side would bring balance to the force, as well as kidnapped children and forced them to relinquish their humanity, all against their will.

[PrismCat21]

You know Pleh, I was going to post that same message, then I remembered...

This is coming from a guy who served an order who lied to its members saying that destroying the dark side would bring balance to the force, as well as kidnapped children and forced them to relinquish their humanity, all against their will.

I don't recall anybody in the Jedi order that claimed destroying the Dark Side would bring balance to the Force.

I'm fact, I can't recall them saying anything about destroying the Dark Side at all.
If they did, please remind me.

[Adeon Hawkwood]

I think another thing is that from a narrative perspective it's often necessary for evil wizards to be individually more powerful to counterbalance the fact that they don't cooperate. If the good wizards are working together to learn new spells, increase their power and train apprentices while the evil wizards are all hoarding power for themselves and constantly backstabbing each other they need to be individually more powerful to explain why the good wizards don't just form a few hit squads and take them out one by one.

[Tanarii]

Luke "Is the dark side stronger?"

Yoda "No! No. Only faster, more seductive."

Classic Yoda. He gives the wrong answer, then it sound like wisdom, while also providing the actual answer.

Faster is more powerful. The problem is seductive, and the price it leads to.

Edit: but point made. Yoda doesn't teach it's more powerful

[Pleh]

I don't recall anybody in the Jedi order that claimed destroying the Dark Side would bring balance to the Force.

I'm fact, I can't recall them saying anything about destroying the Dark Side at all.
If they did, please remind me.

Maybe not the dark side itself, but certainly the Sith. Windu (without correction from Yoda who was there) stated that the "chosen one" was supposed to bring balance to the force. Obi Wan, in confronting Anakin, elaborated that the Jedi believed that this meant Anakin was supposed to destroy the Sith (not join them!)

It seems to depend on what you perceive "balance" in the force to look like. If you think of it as balance between the light and dark, the Jedi were absolutely opposed to balance. They wanted the light side to totally win out and eradicate the dark side.

This comes from a perception that the dark side itself IS the force in a state of imbalance. The light side, ergo, is the nature of the force when perfectly at balance. Therefore, the jedi hope to see the chosen one to abolish the dark side and leave only the light side of the force, like resolving the force's own mental issues so it can act more rationally rather than destructively.

[Pleh]

Classic Yoda. He gives the wrong answer, then it sound like wisdom, while also providing the actual answer.

Faster is more powerful. The problem is seductive, and the price it leads to.

Edit: but point made. Yoda doesn't teach it's more powerful

We kind of saw that it WASN'T stronger at most every point of contest. Anakin and Obi Wan on Mustafar got locked trying to push each other and it came out a tie. Yoda and palpatine was neck and neck for the entire fight.

In every one sided fight, it was more about one side being higher level, rather than being light or dark.

[tensai_oni]

There is no "light side" of the Force. There is the Force and the unbalanced Dark Side.

Balance and the Force dominating are one and the same. Balance between "light" and "dark" sides of the Force is fanon.

At least that's how things used to be because post-Disney, what is canon and what isn't became muddled.

EDIT:

On point. Technically, evil and non-evil wizards have the same potential for power. However evil wizards have fewer taboos they are unwilling to break in pursue of power, and because of that they have more opportunities to grow powerful by for example sacrificing innocents or their soul to demons or whatever.

[Satinavian]

Sure, evil wizards re more powerful.

Basically they are free to do all the magic the good wizards do and can additionally use magic with drawbacks that harm other people.
If your setting does not have some kind of cosmic force punishing the evil wizards and/or rewarding the good ones, that will them make stronger. A lot of settings do have such a force though.

[Knaight]

In MERP specifically evil wizards appear to be stronger. It's also a fairly common trope in fantasy literature, and thus crops up every so often in works emulating that literature. With that said, it may or may not be true in aggregate across RPGs. For all that there's games which either have powers that support evil wizards specifically (from blood sacrifice rules to vile feats to corruption to magic only being available to terrible people) there are also games which expect heroic PCs and explicitly work off the PCs being individually stronger than most anything they're likely to come across. The average could go either way.

[Martin Greywolf]

Others have pointed out setting and genre specific stuff that says yes, evil is more powerful.

I'd like to chip in with an alternative way to look at things. If you define evil sa completely amoral, or willing to cross lines others wouldn't, then it does make evil wizards more powerful in the fireballs per day sense, but. Using other people like disposable tools will turn against you after a while, and will promptly result in no one really liking you, all your allies being of convenience and ready to backstab you at a second's notice. The good wizard will have a lot more people he can rely on to help, maybe even an army, and these people will be much more willing to go the extra distance.

The most successful wizard in this case, however, is machiavellian - keeps a good eye on PR and pesky morals, but isn't afraid to do some morally shady things (or utterly reprehensible things, provided he can cover them up) if it will serve him. A wizard like this, well, you can argue about his alignment all day.

Speaking of Saruman, while he did some supersoldier breeding, he also wanted to help the people of Dunland repel foreign invaders of their lands (Rohirrim and Numenoreans), but that's what happens when you take a simple good vs evil story and try to apply realpolitik to it. Let's just say that LotR is a product of its time and has some problems in this regard.

[Cazero]

Faster is more powerful.

By that logic, the Linear Fighter is stronger than the Quadratic Wizard.

[Florian]

By that logic, the Linear Fighter is stronger than the Quadratic Wizard.

Depends on what edition you play.

@OP:

Look at Maho Tsukai as a prime example. Power for a price. That's not a player PrC because that price can´t be met in the long run.

[Great cthulhu]

Continuing on with this new dark/light side of the force conversation,

An entire order, hundreds of "good guys" could not beat two "bad guys" They played both sides, eventually resulting in almost every single member of the Jedi ended up dying. TWO "bad guys"
Also, from what i've seen in alignment in the movies:
Light side: neutral
Dark side: neutral
Sith: Evil
Jedi: Evil
Rebellion: good
Empire: evil

[Florian]

Continuing on with this new dark/light side of the force conversation,

Just a thought: It is always easier and more convenient to just nuke a city than spell the blood and conquer the city.

[Knaight]

By that logic, the Linear Fighter is stronger than the Quadratic Wizard.

Linear doesn't mean faster - it potentially means initially faster, but eventually it's going to be slower. Faster power growth at all times is going to result in more power.

[Cazero]

Linear doesn't mean faster - it potentially means initially faster, but eventually it's going to be slower. Faster power growth at all times is going to result in more power.

If you make the assumption that Yoda lied and that the dark side is more powerful, your reasoning is correct.

However, if you make the assumption that Yoda is correct and that the dark side is not more powerful, then it is pretty clear that we are in one of the two following situations :
1) the dark side is a power spike followed by sluggish growth,
2) power caps out, and going to your maximum faster is usualy pointless (and may even reduce it).

[PhoenixPhyre]

If you make the assumption that Yoda lied and that the dark side is more powerful, your reasoning is correct.

However, if you make the assumption that Yoda is correct and that the dark side is not more powerful, then it is pretty clear that we are in one of the two following situations :
1) the dark side is a power spike followed by sluggish growth,
2) power caps out, and going to your maximum faster is usualy pointless (and may even reduce it).

To amplify #2 above, taking short-cuts in learning (e.g. memorizing special cases instead of learning the general principles) often reduces your knowledge ceiling. So you can go faster, but cap out much lower than if you did it the "right" way.

[Bastian Weaver]

Is it really necessary to mention that the antagonist must seem stronger than the protagonist to keep the conflict interesting?..

[Pleh]

Continuing on with this new dark/light side of the force conversation,

An entire order, hundreds of "good guys" could not beat two "bad guys" They played both sides, eventually resulting in almost every single member of the Jedi ended up dying. TWO "bad guys"
Also, from what i've seen in alignment in the movies:
Light side: neutral
Dark side: neutral
Sith: Evil
Jedi: Evil
Rebellion: good
Empire: evil

Double edged sword. Two sith with unlimited resources couldn't kill more than 1 out of 3 jedi 20 years later.

Might be more an issue of, "don't try to kill a mosquito with a cannon" than dark>light.

Also, Rogue One really draws into question your assertion the rebellion was Good and not merely Neutral.

Edit: yoda in the prequels and Luke in the new trilogy both kind of insinuated the fall of the order (both times) was personal hubris. Not a weakness of the light side, but user error.

[Tanarii]

By that logic, the Linear Fighter is stronger than the Quadratic Wizard.

You misunderstood. By that logic, a level 10 character, who gained XP faster, is more powerful than a level 5.

[Anonymouswizard]

From a gaming perspective it's not a universal thing, and arguably having it inbuilt in the system is rare (it's not in the majority of my fantasy games, but I don't own that many, and most of them don't track any sort of character morality).

From a story perspective, it depends. Sometimes the evil wizard is more powerful, sometimes they have more resources (so are more powerful, but not because of their magic), are willing to tap into sources that are dangerous to themselves to others, or are just willing to break taboos that good magicians aren't.

FWIW it's common in gaming so that you can have the party beat up the evil wizard without it feeling too one-sided.

[Mechalich]

Evil wizards - and in some cases just evil characters generally - are more powerful if doing evil provides rewards that are greater than the rewards for doing good. Often this takes the form of specific actions that only evil people would conduct that provide a material benefit with not counterbalancing good action.

A simple and classical example is human sacrifice: if killing people provides power, and saving people doesn't provide the same amount of power (or no power at all) then evil is more powerful and your world has an inducement to terrifying cosmic horror that will produce a world of hideous grimdark. In D&D context the type example is Dark Sun: Defilier magic allows for power at the expense of the ecosystem. The result is a destroyed ecosystem and a grimdark hellscape ruled by corrupt wizard gods.

It should be noted that this is bad setting and system design if you are intending to produce a world that is not a grimdark hellscape or a rumination on cosmic horror you should not build a world this way. In fact, given incentives, laziness, and other factors it is generally better design if good is explicitly stronger than evil, though usually a more difficult path. Many settings often fail to do this. One reason is the influence of salvationist moral thinking in which the entire world is functionally a test. In a salvationist scenario it doesn't matter if the world is a grimdark hellscape, only personal virtue matters, because everyone is facing an inescapable, all-powerful judgment in due course and will be rewarded appropriately. Many settings apply options that make sense in the context of a salvationist world - like the ability to sell your soul for temporary power - that become meaningless when judgment will never come.

[Cluedrew]

There is no "light side" of the Force. There is the Force and the unbalanced Dark Side.

This is also my interpretation too, although I think the two-sides view got picked up in later works and might now be the "proper" one. Of course I'm not sure what happened with that when the cannon reset.

In terms of wizards, the only idea I can think of is goodness as a (metaphoric) payment. It is related the magic that makes you strong, but also leaves you as a shadow of your formal self.

And then good wizards tend to support each other, so you can be a mediocre or weak good wizard. However an evil wizard will either be hunted, or used and cast aside, shifting the average. Although that one doesn't cover the upper limit.

[Morphic tide]

In roleplaying games that give access to "evil" abilities, almost always yes, because of a heavy bias towards "Good is Hard" making cases of giving balancing bonuses for not using the Evil abilities rare. For example, one of the darker jokes in 3.X is that there's virtually nothing that can't be accomplished by killing enough people, made literally true with the Book of Vile Darkness introducing rules to kill people for everything from negating crafting costs to a one-per-person Wish (and getting the Wish from a livestock sacrifice isn't particularly difficult by level 5). And summoning Fiends, which is actually rather minor compared to the other options.

The stuff on offer for being Good requires you to take an unbreakable oath to abstain from mechanically-important things, you lose the benefits the moment you commit a single Evil act, and mostly only benefits Paladins and Clerics, of which the latter has better options independant of alignment and the former is too **** for it to really help, especially when required oaths can include forsaking all magic item use, never using a single consumable item or accepting any magical buff, forbidding yourself from ever inflicting lethal damage and other stuff extremely problematic for 3.X. Meanwhile, the living sacrifice rules are an Evil act to use, but don't require you to be a raging dickwaffle at all times to use them, unlike the "you must literally make actual saints look shady in comparison to your righteous ass to have this" Exalted feats.

Few systems integrate mechanical penalties for being Evil or have all the Evil options include clear disadvantages that are problematic for PCs, because then the allure of Evil vanishes. And then they abstain from having rules that have Good outdoing Evil actually work, as they rarely specify that the Evil powers require you to be a backstabbing ******* and as such Lawful Evil Giganazis can happily trample over the do-gooders because they've god fundamental objective advantages.